Recent studies show that only four to five of every ten people approached about organ donation consent. This is despite the laudable technological advancements that have been made so as to easy organ donation as well as significant resources that have been allocated towards the education of the members of the public in regard to organ donation.
Analysts are of the opinion that one of the main ways of saving lives by increasing transferable organ numbers is to come up with strategies to eliminate the barriers that inform consent decisions at the familial level. In this text, I critique a nursing research article, “” written by three authors; Liva H. Jacoby, Carmen Radecki and Elizabeth A. Pease.
To begin with, the authors of the article come up with an appropriate title that is largely clear and not vague. The title of the study “A qualitative examination of the needs of families faced with the option of organ donation” captures the very objective of the study and hence goes a long way to prepare the reader on what to expect from an evaluation of the text. The appropriateness of the title also goes ahead to give the study direction. It is important to note that the authors of the article in this case presents a clear and concise purpose of the study right from the onset.
This study concerns itself with an examination of the needs (perceived) of non-donor as well as donor members of the family when it comes to support in the intensive care setting of hospitals. This study also seeks to come up with a proper understanding of the various considerations for specific support as founded in theoretical framework.
It is also important to note herein that the authors present three clear and easy to understand research questions. The research questions in this case can be said to play three key roles. This includes but is not in any way limited to the provision of direction for the study, the erection of boundaries for the study as well as the enhancement of the investigations as well as inquiries being carried out.
The first research questions seek to shed light into how the behaviors and communication of people involved in the donation request are interpreted by the donor families as well as non-donor families and how these interpretations differ. When it comes to the second research question, the authors set about to seek the lessons that can be learnt from the accounts of families in regard to their support needs when it comes to donation decisions.
The third research question seeks to map out the care and interventions implications as far as the perceived support needs of families are concerned. In regard to the literature review, the authors do a good job in the evaluation of extensive studies that have been done before in this area.
They incorporate into their study current research findings and this goes a long way to enhance the quality as well as relevance of their study. It is also important to note that the study does not have misrepresentation or misinterpretation errors. This can be gleaned from the choice of references used in the references section. According to Craswell (2003), authors are known to misrepresent or misinterpret other people’s work and this goes a long way to put the relevance as well as quality of their own work in doubt. This is a mistake that has not made in this particular study.
It is also appropriate to note that by seeking to base most of their literature review on organizational findings i.e. United Network for Organ Sharing and other authorities in the fields of organ donation, the authors of this study go a long way to enhance the relevance of the study.It can however be noted that though the authors use pertinent literature in a vast majority of the cases, there are some literature inclusions that look largely inconsequential. This includes some texts that largely concern themselves with types and timing of social support, donor surveys as well as readiness of Physicians as well as nurses (critical care) to handle organ donation requests.
Though applicable and largely relevant in some other texts, these references which form a slim minority of references cannot be taken to be pertinent and should in that regard be deleted.The authors also use figures to highlight the issue with their estimates that close to 6200 people could have lost their lives in the year 2002 as they lined up for organ transplants.
is s stern pointer of the shortage of people willing to give their consent for an organ transplant. Thus, the authors are of the opinion that one of the most significant approaches to addressing the shortage is through the elimination of barriers that cloud the decision making process of families as far as consent is concerned
The authors are of the opinion that previous literature have documented a good number of factors related to the decision making of families and this includes but is not in any way limited to the request manner and timing, the understanding the family has of brain death, the care satisfaction levels of families as well as how comfortable families are with the hospital staff or otherwise. The authors also rightfully note that one of the most significant contributions to this area of study was done by Jaccard and Radecki who came to the conclusion that the decision of a family to donate or not to donate was largely influenced by hospital staff’s level of support.
It is also important to note that apart from the Jaccard and Radecki study, other descriptive studies have been done over time with the sole aim of illustrating the importance of availing to families not only informational support but also emotional support at the time of the decision-making process. The gaps in existing literature are also recognized in this study. The authors note that though significant gains have been made as far as this are of research is concerned, there are a number of other grey areas that have over time received little or no scientific attention. Areas of concern in this case include how donor families as well as non-donor families perceive the support’s nature and subtleties in regard to their decisions.
Hence with all these in mind, the discussion the authors of this study present herein is largely relevant. When it comes to the study design, it can be said to be largely in consistence with the study purpose. Further, the authors go a long way to correctly state the study design where the focus group methodology is utilized for purposes of accessing accounts (retrospective) of the hospital experiences peri-donation as far as non-donor and donor families are concerned. The approach used in this case enables the authors to answer the research questions formulated earlier on.
In this regard, the approach is founded on a number of steps (three to be precise) and they include the experience of interest information gathering, descriptive data reviewing and the identification of themes that are not only relevant but also consistent and last but not least, coming up with a description of how the themes are interrelated and how they mirror the research questions. This approach can simply be represented as description, reduction and lastly interpretation. It can also be noted here that the authors took the trouble to seek the approval of relevant authorities before the conduction of the study.
This includes the medical institutions in the areas where the studies were conducted. However, in regard to the design of the study, I tend to think the authors could have done something to enhance threat control in regard to validity (external and internal).When it comes to data collection, the authors have sufficiently described the data collection means. They note that the data collected in regard to the study could be subject to bias (recall) as well as retrospective in nature. Apart from the data collection methods being described clearly one feels that they are largely relevant for the concern at hand. It is therefore not likely that the results of the study were significantly affected by the choice of data collection methods used.
The recruitment of participants in this case is well described and so is the interview structure. Apart from seeking approval from the relevant authorities, those who were used as subjects in the study had their rights safeguarded and they were not in any coerced to participate in the study. Further, their confidentiality was largely protected and none of the private data they provided was availed to third parties. There is hence no possibility of the subjects in the study feeling coerced or forced to give their responses.
When it comes to the data analysis, the authors have enhanced clarity in the analysis of data. Efforts have also been made to ensure that the language used is not overly complicated to the reader. It is important to note that when it comes to the analysis, the verification of transcriptions (written) against material as it was recorded was done by an independent reviewer. This went a long way to enhance the validity of the results presented. Regarding the interpretation of the findings as well as the discussion, there is what can be referred to loosely as a ‘significant fit’ with what we have as the data.
Hence a review of the findings presented therein based on the data is in one way or the other logical. It is also important to note that the findings n this case dictate the need for additional research as far as the psychological needs of families and how they can be appropriately met is concerned. Hence all in all, a study of this nature is not only relevant but timely.
In conclusion, it may be noted that the findings presented by this study have a significant application in nursing practice. This is because the findings presented could go a long way towards informing some significant change in practice. In that regard, the implications of such a study shall continue to be highly relevant for the nursing practice going forward.
Craswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. SAGE